Dennis J. Quebedeaux, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Similarly Situated Persons and Entities v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 317

Takings suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking just compensation for flooding of Morganza Floodway/Atchafalaya basin during 2011 flood.
Morganza Spillway diverts Mississippi River flood water into Atchafalaya basin; opened at 21% capacity to prevent downstream levee breaches.
Flooding allegedly destroyed/damaged/devalued plaintiffs’ crops, homes, and other property; asserts a permanent, ongoing taking without compensation.
Plaintiffs filed June 15, 2011; amended complaint October 2011; defendant moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(6) (denied).
Court analyzes pleading standards (Twombly/Iqbal), the Sponenbarger doctrine, and whether a single flooding event can constitute a taking, guiding discovery and further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
whether a single flood event can be a taking	Flooding and permanency of impact can support a taking under multi-factor test	Some authorities treat isolated floods as torts, not takings	Denied; multi-factor approach governs; single flood can support a taking depending on circumstances

United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316 (1917) (government-induced flooding may be a taking)
Pumpelly v. Green Bay & Miss. Canal Co., 80 U.S. 166 (1871) (flooding can destroy or impair real property)
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (permanent invasion/occupation considerations in takings)
Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 511 (2012) (flooding takings case; case-specific factual inquiry; rejection of blanket bright-line rule)
United States v. Sponenbarger, 308 U.S. 256 (1939) (Sponenbarger doctrine requires considering whether benefits to claimant offset government liability)